WPC `ٌUU5QP(bZ\nJ&v+ukHRxe*,kKq }V}kG㸵NiW8/# UIN % 0: 0Y 0G 02 0 0 0 0 0 0u 0K 0' 0 0 0 0y 0F 0 0 0 0v 0N 0#! 0! 0" 0# 0Y$ 0%^ %w%4%&& m& 1.& 72& 1u& 72b' 0c' 1' 72~(( 0~m. 0D. 1// 00/ 0</ 0"0 0>0 0v1 0`1 0`1 0`T2 0`2 0`3 08t3 03 02~4 04 0:5 0Y5 0_?6 0 6 0j7 09 B*: D/: D+: 0; D/< 0< 06= 0= 0:> 0^? 0<q?U6?U>?U*!@!@ 0LK@ 0A 0 MBU0mC 0NC 1C 72rD 0wD 1E 72E 1E 72[F 72F F F F BF G 1$G 72G 0UG 2H S 0SZT 1 V 72V 0V 0WFX 0<H_ 1_ 72 `N=` 1?` 1` 72Maba 0a 72bbb 0b 0Cc 0c 0d 0^e 09f 0D(g 1lh 72h 0'iii 0p 0VqVq 0r Vr 0s 0s 0ft 7u 0IuIuIuIu 0uv 0Ew 0w 0xx 0(y(y 0yyy 0JzJzJzJzJzJzJzJzJzJz 0 { 0{ 0| 04} 0} 0v~ 0 0**$ՄHP LaserJet 4050 TN PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  ƃ* 8**Backup3|xU(CEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)&(1)3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.+1.  .($USUS.,    2    _    8  ?+ ` hp x X?Forexample,plaintiffreliesheavilyonthePlannedParenthood[v._Bucci_]caseto = supportitsargumentthatinitialinterestconfusionissufficienttodemonstratea &v likelihoodofconfusion.WhilethefactsinPlannedParenthoodQXdFXXXappearatfirstblush _ tobesimilar,thecourtnotesthatdefendant[inthe_Bucci_case]stoodtobenefit H commerciallyontwobases:(1)defendantwasusingtheboguswebsitetofurther 1  salesofabook ;and(2)defendant'snonprofit% c #XdFXXQXdF#%cantiabortiongroupstoodto    commerciallybenefitthroughthesolicitationoffundsbydivertingusersfrom  plaintiff'ssite....Here,thecourtcannotmakesimilarconclusionsbaseduponthe  limitedrecord.Othercasescitedbyplaintiffaresimilarlydistinguishable.   _Northland_ԀIns.Co.,115F.Supp.2dat1120(emphasisadded).(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0  (hCEKQW]cioAutoList81.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?R%2A`Arial?  XXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7&  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7  ?R%2A`Arial?  XXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7E)2dxd0KS.SampleKP<6X9`(Courier NewKSQ\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKP<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial6 4heading 1    XXXEW2 `CG TimesE     XXXSQ\  `&Times New RomanS   6@ 34heading 2   XXX      XXX6l q4heading 3  H h  D,DL XXX    2( 4 <DL2   H XXX2 `CG Times(O$0V(CEKQW]cioAutoList31.a.1.1.1.1.1.1.Y1.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList4a.a.a.a.a.a.a.a.\a.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.^1.01.SDU_28SDU_66SDU_56 dSDU_32(EGMSY_ekqAutoList11I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.fI.*+ (_2623  .. ~ .($USUS.,    3    _    8  Sinceatleastthemiddleages,trademarkshaveservedprimarilytoidentifythe = sourceofgoodsandservices, tofacilitatethetracingoffalseordefectivewares &v andthepunishmentoftheoffendingcraftsman.F._Schechter_,QXdFXXXTheHistorical _ FoundationsoftheLawRelatingtoTrademarks#XdFXXQXdF#QXdFXXXdFԀ47(1925).Thelawhasprotected H trademarkssincetheearlyseventeenthcentury,% j #XdFXXQXdFe#%jQXdFXXXdFandtheprimaryfocusoftrademark 1 lawhasbeenmisappropriationtheproblemofoneproducersplacinghisrivals    markonhisowngoods.See,e.g.,#XdFXXQXdF+#QXdFXXXdFSouthernv.How,#XdFXXQXdFD#79Eng.Rep.1243(K.B.1618).  ThelawoftrademarkinfringementwasimportedfromEnglandintoourlegalsystem  withitsprimarygoalthepreventionofunfaircompetitionthroughmisappropriated  marks.See,e.g.,Taylorv.Carpenter,QXdFXXXdFԀ23F._Cas_.742(_C.C._ԀD.Mass.1844)#XdFXXQXdF#Ԁ(Story, k J.).Althoughaninitialattemptatfederalregulationwasdeclaredunconstitutional, T seeTheTradeMarkCases,QXdFXXXdFԀ100U.S.82,25L.Ed.550(1879)#XdFXXQXdF/#,trademarkshavebeen =  coveredbyacomprehensivefederalstatutoryschemesincethepassageofthe & v LanhamActin1946....Throughoutthedevelopmentoftrademarklaw,thepurpose  _ oftrademarksremainedconstantandlimited:Identificationofthemanufactureror  H sponsorofagoodortheproviderofaservice.Andthewrongprotectedagainstwas  1  traditionallyequallylimited:Preventingproducersfromfreeridingontheirrivals'    marks....ThecoreprotectionoftheLanhamActremainsfaithfultothis   conception.SeeQXdFXXXdF15U.S.C.#XdFXXQXdF7 #QXdFXXXdF1114#XdFXXQXdF #Ԁ(prohibitingunauthorizeduseincommerceof   registeredmarks).       `  NewKids,at305.SDU_19*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /    P .($USUS.,    4    _ThereisnodisputethatGeneralMotorsiscompletelyawareofexactlywhoownsand  usesthisDomainName,andthereforeGMcannotpossiblydevelopabadopinionaboutFordin  thiscontext.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList9I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.mI.*8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) `   .($USUS.,    6    _Likewise,Bihariv.Gross,119F.Supp.2dat32223,recognizes:  8  ThecommercialuserequirementinQXdFXXX#XdFXXQXdF#43(a)tracksthecommercialspeech  doctrineasdevelopedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt .SeeCentral l HudsonGas&Elec.Corp.v.PublicServ.Comm.ofNewYork,QXdFXXXdFԀ447U.S.557, X 561(1980)#XdFXXQXdF#.FollowingtheSupremeCourt'sprecedent,theSecondCircuithas A  explainedthat [_t]he_Ԁcorenotionofcommercialspeechincludesspeechwhich * z doesnomorethanproposeacommercialtransaction.BadFrogBrewery,Inc.v.  c NewYorkStateLiquorAuth.,34F.3d87,97(2dCir.1998)(quotingQXdFXXXdFBolgerv.  L _Youngs_ԀDrugProd.Corp.,#XdFXXQXdF#Ԁ63U.S.60,66,(1983).... Themereuseofanother's  5  nameontheInternet...isnotpersecommercialuse.BallyTotalFitness    HoldingCorp.v.Faber,29F.Supp.2d1161,1166(C.D.Cal.1998).Nordothe   Gross_websites_Ԁofferany"commercialtransaction."Defendantsarenotinterior   designersanddonotsellvisitorsanyproductsorservices.    Bihari,at32223(emphasisadded). [  <:Default Para(hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.s1.(գEGMSY_ekqAutoList101.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(hCEKQW]cioAutoList71.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.w1.- -<bb:footnote tex   2( 4 <DL2  2( 4 <DL2  v1.(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# *[~xGaeimquy}Bullet ListBullets List*2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &    .($USUS.,    5    _TheLanhamActrequiresproofofadefiniteandconcrete likelihood ofconfusionabout  theoriginorsourceofparticulargoodsorservices;aremoteandspeculative possibilityof   confusionwillnotsuffice.A&HSportswear,Inc.v.Victoria'sSecretStores,Inc.,166F.3d  197,20506(3rdCir.2000)( Theothercircuitsareunanimousinrequiringtheuseofthe  likelihoodofconfusionstandardinLanhamActinfringementcases.);International_Ass'n_Ԁof  MachinistsandAerospaceWorkersv._Winship_ԀGreenNursingCtr.,QXdFXXXԀ103F.3d196,200(1st k Cir.1996)#XdFXXQXdFF#Ԁ(_markholder_Ԁ mustshowmorethanthetheoreticalpossibilityofconfusion);August T StorckK.G.v.Nabisco,Inc.,QXdFXXXdFԀ59F.3d616,618(7thCir.1995)#XdFXXQXdFo#Ԁ(possibilityofconfusionnot =  sufficient;ifitwere, allcomparativereferenceswouldbeforbidden,andconsumersasawhole & v wouldbeworseoff);_Vitek_Ԁ_Sys_.,Inc.v.AbbottLabs.,675F.2d190,192(8thCir.1982)("[A]  _ merepossibilityisnotenough;theremustbeasubstantiallikelihoodthatthepublicwillbe  H confused.'").*/+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   citeas((Cite as: 71 F.Supp.2d 500, *507)*&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   SDU_31*88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) `  ClelandCORLEYPREHEARINGCyberBriefLanham FTDAU.S.P.T.O.*22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x     .($USUS.,    1    _ThisMotionispresentedforpurposesofpreservingallrightsanddefensesthatmay  exist,becauseitisunclearwhetherRule12(g)requiressuchdefensestoberaisednoworwhen  DefendantsAnswerisdue.Accordingly,becausetheAnswerisnotyetdue,andsubjecttothis  abbreviatedmotionandsupportingmemorandum,Defendantsrespectfullyreservetherightto k brieforassertanydefenselistedinRule12(b),withamorethoroughamendedmotionand T supportingmemorandumpriortotheduedatefortheAnswer.Inanticipationofan inrem =  claimunder15U.S.C.1125(d)(2)(eventhoughPlaintiffhasyettoassertsuchaclaim), & v Defendantsherebyspecificallyassertanddonotwaivethedefenseoflackofsubjectmatter  _ jurisdiction.Defendantsalsoherebyassertanddonotwaivethedefenseofdismissalfor  H impropervenueandtherighttomovetotransfervenue.    !USUS.,  _y8dFXXdd8  DXX    INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  WKD@@ FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFMICHIGAN   #DWK#QDD&  T    QXdFXQDQXdFXXQXdFXXXQXdFXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWXXXX    #WXXXWXՓ#WKXWXT  #DWK#WKDSOUTHERNDIVISIONT  0Ԍ  Ќ  WKWKWKWKQDWKQDQDQDQDQDQDQDQDQDQDQDQDQDQD     #DQD#QDD'  @* ?+ ,4 <DLX? FORDMOTORCOMPANY,     ?( 4 <DL,X?   p     &  U   QXdFXQDQXdFXXQXdF    #QXdFXXQXdFk#QDXQXdFU@  Plaintiffs   h   U@  Ԍ   Ќ   QDQDQDQD    ' 4 Xv. `     h     CaseNo.01CV71685DT     `     h     CaseNo.#DQD#QDD01CV60084DT     X  ?+ ,4 <DLX? 2600ENTERPRISES,andERIC    #DQD$ #QDDHon.RobertH.Cleland#DQD, #QDD    CORLEYp/k/aEMMANUEL h     UnitedStatesDistrictJudge#DQD #QDD    GOLDSTEIN, #DQD7 #QDD      h-D,DL,X-   p     &  h?( 4 <DLD,DX?V  H h*D,DLX* QXdFXQDQXdFXXQXdF    #QXdFXXQXdF#QDXQXdFV   Defendants.   p     V   aԌ  Ќ h! XD,DX!   HQDQDQDQD  <( 4 <DLX<____________________________________/#DQD #WKD'e    p      #DWK#QDD   @@(1)PREHEARINGMEMORANDUMOFDEFENDANTSINOPPOSITION ~ TOPLAINTIFFSPRELIMINARYINJUNCTIONMOTION, { AND(2)DEFENDANTSRULE12(b)(2)and12(b)(6)MOTION x ANDSUPPORTINGMEMORANDUMTODISMISSFORLACK u OFPERSONALJURISDICTIONANDFAILURETOSTATEACLAIM r W   `     h 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#EricC.Grimm(P58990) x  @x  @x `!(#(#    `     h      CyberBrief,PLC    ["    `     h     320SouthMainStreet X#    `     h     P.O.Box7341 S$     `     h     AnnArbor,MI481077341 N% !    `     h     734.332.4900 I&!" 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#COUNSELFORDEFENDANTS?(#$(#(#    `     h     2600MAGAZINEANDERIC :)$% 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#CORLEY(pseudonymouslyknownas 5*%& EMMANUELGOLDSTEIN).0+&'(#(# M#DQD"##XdFXD# +,{'(     @""' MOTION _ /#  1      _Ԉ     ` DefendantsEricCorleyp/k/aEmmanuelGoldstein( Goldstein)and2600  Enterprises( 2600")respectfullymovefordismissaloftheComplaintforthefollowingreasons: V (1)0   Lackof TrademarkUse: EvenassumingthatallthefactsallegedintheComplaint ( x aretrue,theComplaintfailstoallegeanyuseof(a)anybrand, word,term,name,  P symbol,ordevice,oranycombinationthereofbythedefendantseither onorin  "  connectionwithany goodsorservices ,oranycontainerforgoods(see15U.S.C.   1125(a)),or(b)anyregisteredmarkorimitationthereofonorinconnectionwithany |   sale,offeringforsale,distribution,oradvertisingofany goodsorservices .See15 N U.S.C.1114(a).NorareDefendantsallegedtohaveusedanywordoranythingelseas &v a designationoforigintosignifythatanyparticulargoodsorservicesoriginatedwith H eitheroftheDefendants.NeithertheFederalTrademarkDilutionAct,norsections1114  or1125(a)ofTitle15authorizesanycauseofactiontoprohibitspeechthatinvolvesno   trademarkuse ofanytermsorsymbols.n(#(# (2)0   No CommercialUse: Theterms commercialuseand/or incommerce,asusedin F sections1114(a)and1125(a),and)oftheLanhamTrademarkAct,aretermsofartwith  n averyspecificmeaning.ThisessentialelementofanyFTDAorLanhamActclaimis   emphaticallynot synonymouswiththeterm commerceasthattermisusedinthe  CommerceClauseoftheU.S.Constitution.Rather,thespecificmeaningisdefinedby Z referencetothe commercialspeechdoctrineundertheFirstAmendment,andsignifies , | activityinthecommercialmarketplace,engaginginnothingmorethanbusinessor  N consumertransactions.Itdoesnotapplytospeech!the marketplaceofideas.   Plaintifffailstoallege commercial activitywithintheLanhamActortheFTDA. (#(# (3)0   NoPersonalJurisdiction: NeitheroftheDefendantsissubjecttopersonaljurisdiction z  intheStateofMichigan.Accordingly,thisCourtlackspowertoimposeanyequitable R decreeandcannotgrantanyinjunctivereliefforwhichPlaintiffprays.$t(#(#    QUESTIONSPRESENTED  F % 0(h83("*3"    *3f&2h  1  .3  0 `   HasFORDsatisfieditsaffirmativeburdennotonlytoplead,butalsotoprove  withevidence,sufficientfactstosatisfytheessentialelementoftrademarkuseof  theDomainNameatissuebyeitheroftheDefendants?*3f&&݌n` (#` (# Ќ    2.0 ` HasFORDsatisfieditsaffirmativeburdenofpleading,andprovingwith @ affirmativeevidence,commercialuse(asthattermofartisusedintheLanham  b Act)oftheDomainNameatissuebyeitherDefendant?!4 ` (#` (#   3.0 ` SinceFORDdoesnotownthebrandGENERALMOTORS,doesFordhave #" standingtosuetoblocktheuseoftheDomainNameatissue?% $` (#` (#   4.0 ` IseitherDefendantsubjecttopersonaljurisdiction?Z'"&` (#` (#   5.0 ` HasFORD,byparticipatingvoluntarilyintheWorldWideWeb!asystemfor ,)|$( representingideasandexchanginginformationthatreflectsasitscoreandmost *N&* fundamentalvaluethe linkingofideasonetoanotherbyanyonetoanyWebsite  foranyreason!therebyelectedtoparticipateinasystemwhere,customarilyand  forimportantreasonsofpolicy, freedomtolinkisalwaysthedefaultruleunless T anaffirmativetechnological optoutiserected,andforwhichthereexistsno & v legal nottobereferredtosolongasthelinkingpartyisnottryingto  H circumventatechnologicaloptout(e.g.,tryingtocircumventpasswordaccess)?  ` (#` (#   6.0 ` IsthetrademarkFORD famousasthattermofartisusedintheFederal   TrademarkDilutionAct,andhasFORDmetitsaffirmativeevidentiaryburdenof n  proving famousness?@` (#` (#   7.0 ` HasFORDmetitsburdenofprovingtrademarkinfringementordilution?b` (#` (#   8.0 ` HasFORDprovenalikelihoodofanyconcrete,nonspeculativeinjury,sufficient 4 towarrantimpositionoftheextraordinaryinjunctiveremedyFORDseeks?` (#` (#   9.0 ` Inordertojustifyacontentbasedregulationofdefendantsspeech,hasFORD  madeanaffirmativeevidentiaryshowingofany compelling governmental Z interestsufficienttosupporttheimpositionoftheinjunctionPlaintiffseeks?2` (#` (#   10.0 ` AretheextraordinaryandbroadtermsoftheinjunctionthatPlaintiffseeksboth  T  narrowlytailored andabsolutely necessary ,suchthattheyrepresent theleast !&  restrictivemeans outofallpossibilities,fortheaccomplishmentofany #"  compellinggovernmentalobjectivethatPlaintiffpurportstohaveidentified?% $` (#` (#   11.0 ` AreDefendantsactionsprotectedbya FairUseDefense,forcommentary, X'"& criticism,orthe nominative (nontrademark)useofreferencestotrademarks? @" *)z$(` (#` (#   +R&*    INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  15WXXXXdF@S S FORTHEEASTERNDISTRICTOFMICHIGAN   #XdFXXWXՅ5#QXdFXXXdF&  T    QXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFXXXQXdFXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWXXXX    TA6  #XdFXXWX6#WXXXXdFSOUTHERNDIVISIONTA68  8Ԍ  Ќ  WXXXWXWXXXWXWXXXWXWXXXWXQXdFXXWXQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdF    #XdFXXQXdF29#QXdFXXXdF'56   p      x @* ?+ ,4 <DLX? FORDMOTORCOMPANY, c   ?( 4 <DL,X?   p     &  U   QXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdF    U=  Plaintiffs   h   U=>  >Ԍ 6  Ќ   QXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdF    '6 = Xv. `     h     CaseNo.01CV71685DT  Y  `     h     CaseNo.#XdFXXQXdFl<#QXdFXXXdF01CV60084DT   B   `  X?+ ,4 <DLX? 2600ENTERPRISES,andERIC h   #XdFXXQXdFA#QXdFXXXdF0  Hon.RobertH.Cleland#XdFXXQXdFB#QXdFXXXdF (#(#  CORLEYp/k/aEMMANUEL h     UnitedStatesDistrictJudge#XdFXXQXdF{B#QXdFXXXdF    GOLDSTEIN, #XdFXXQXdF8C#QXdFXXXdF      h-D,DL,X-   p     &  h?( 4 <DLD,DX?V  H h*D,DLX* QXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdF    VD  Defendants.   p     VDE  EԌ o  Ќ h! XD,DX!   HQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdFQXdFXXQXdF  <( 4 <DLX<____________________________________/#XdFXXQXdFC#WXXXXdF'ofD   p    Y #XdFXXWXվG# 5  SUPPORTINGMEMORANDUM  2 iH8  8`    Congressshallmakenolaw...abridgingthefreedomof V speech,orofthepress ...@` x` x HU.S.Const.Amend.1. Nolawmeansexactlythat! nolaw.ItincludestheLanhamAct  andtheFederalTrademarkDilutionAct( FTDA).Thesestatutesmaynotbeinvokedina  mannerthatinfringesthefreedomofspeechorofthepress.Itisundisputed,asamatteroflaw, i thattheFirstAmendment(atanabsolute minimum )requiresaheightenedstandardofscrutiny! ; moresearchingeventhanintermediatescrutiny!for any injunctionthatburdensspeech. !c _Madsen_Ԁv.WomensHealthCtr.,Inc.,512U.S.753(1994).Under_Madsen_,allinjunctions ";! (evencontentneutralonesthatonlyincidentallyburdenspeech)must(ataminimum) burden $ # nomorespeechthannecessarytoserveasignificantgovernmentinterest.Id.at765.However, &!% here,wheretheproposedregulationiscontentbased, strictscrutinyapplies. a(#'   Moreover,theLanhamActandtheFTDA(especiallytherequirementsof trademark 3*%) usetosignifythesourceofgoodsandservices,and commercialuse)shouldnotbe ,U'+ interpretedorconstruedasPlaintiffproposes,becausestatutesshouldbeinterpretedinamanner  calculatedto avoid unnecessaryconstitutionalproblems.FleetBostonFin.Corp.v.  _FleetBostonFinancial.com_,No.Civ.A.0010176DPW,2001WL360592,at*12(D.Mass. Z Mar.27,2001);accordEdwardJ._DeBartolo_ԀCorp.v.FloridaGulfCoastBuilding&Constr. , | TradesCouncil,485U.S.568,575(1988);_Ashwander_Ԁv.TennesseeValleyAuth.,297U.S.288,  N 341,346(1936)(_Brandeis_,J.,concurring).Simplyput,if15U.S.C.1114,1125(a),and   1125(c)areconstruedasplaintiffproposes,toreachandenjointheDefendantsexpression,then   thesestatutesare(1)unconstitutionalasappliedand(2)_overbroad_.Accordingly,thestatutory t  interpretationproposedbythePlaintiffshouldberejected. F I.0   PlaintiffAsksThisCourtToViolatetheFirstAmendment. h(#(#   Itisimportantthattrademarksnotbetransformedfromrightsagainstunfair @ competitiontorightstocontrollanguage._CPC_Ԁ_Intl_,Inc.v._Skippy_,Inc.,214F.3d456,462(4th  Cir.2000)(quotingMarkA._Lemley_,TheModernLanhamActandtheDeathofCommonSense,  108Yale_L.J._1687,171011(1999));seealso_Northland_ԀIns.Cos.v._Blaylock_,115F.Supp.2d f 1108,111920(D.Minn.2000)( QXdFXXXdFInthiscase,defendantdoesnotappeartobesituatedtobenefit 8 financiallyorcommerciallyfromtheexistenceofthiswebsite,whichappearstobesolely  Z intendedtocapturetheattentionofinsuranceconsumerstosharedefendant'scommercial !,  commentaryandcriticism.)#XdFXXQXdF%W#;_- /#  2      _ԀBihariv.Gross,119F.Supp.2d309,32223(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ2000); #" LucentTech.,Inc.v._Lucentsucks.Com_,95F.Supp.2d528,535(E.D.Va.2000);BallyTotal  FitnessHoldingCorp.v.Faber,29F.Supp.2d1161,1168(C.D.Cal.1998).  0  8` (#(#Iftheantidilutionstatutewereconstruedaspermittingatrademarkowner T toenjointheuseofhismarkinanoncommercialcontextfoundtobe =  negativeoroffensive,thenacorporationcouldshielditselffromcriticism & v byforbiddingtheuseofitsnameincommentariescriticalofitsconduct.  _ Thelegitimateaimoftheantidilutionstatuteistoprohibitthe  H unauthorizeduseofanother'strademarkinordertomarketincompatible  1  productsorservices.TheConstitutiondoesnot,however,permittherange    oftheantidilution% a %ar]QXdFXXXdFstatutetoencompasstheunauthorizeduseofa   trademarkinanoncommercialsettingsuchasaneditorialorartisticcontext.    ` `  #XdFXXQXdF]#ZBallyTotalFitness,29F.Supp.2dat1168.PlaintiffsdistasteforDefendantscommunicative n  messagecannotjustifythesilencingofcriticalspeech.Mattel,Inc.v.MCARecords,Inc.,28F. @ Supp.2d1120,1137(C.D.Cal.1998). b   AsexplainedintheAffidavitofEmmanuelGoldsteinatlength,the hyperlinkjokein 4 thiscaseisspeech.Itisnotonlyspeech!itisonesmallbutimportantpartofalargerprojectof  artisticandpoliticalspeech.Itis corespeech entitledtothemostrobustprotectionaffordedby  theFirstAmendment.Hessv.Indiana,414U.S.105(1973);Cohenv.California,403U.S.15 ` (1971)( fuckthedraftisprotectedspeech);seealso_Wooley_Ԁv.Maynard,430U.S.705(1977) 2 (covering livefreeordielicenseplatesloganisprotectedexpression).Nevertheless,Plaintiff  T asksthisCourttoimposeaforbiddenpriorrestraintonMr.Goldsteinsspeech.SeeBihari,119 !&  F.Supp.2dat324(citingBantamBooks,Inc.v.Sullivan,372U.S.58,70(1963)).Itis #" impossibleforMr.Goldsteintomakethis hyperlinkjokewithouttheuseofthereferral. z% $   Inordertojustifyacontentbasedrestrictiononspeechorexpressiveconduct,Plaintiff  mustmakeanaffirmativecaseforsurviving strictscrutiny.ThestateactionthatPlaintiff  demandsmustbenarrowlytailoredandnecessarytoserveastheleastrestrictivemeansto T achieveacompellingstateinterest.UnitedStatesv.PlayboyEntertainmentGroup,529U.S. & v 803,120S.Ct.1878,1888(2000)(?+ ` hp x X? Ifastatuteregulatesspeechbasedonitscontent,itmustbe  H narrowlytailoredtopromoteacompellingGovernmentinterest.Ifalessrestrictivealternative    wouldservetheGovernment'spurpose,thelegislaturemustusethatalternative.);Renov.   AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion,521U.S.844,874(1997);_R.A.V._Ԁv.St.Paul,505U.S.377,386 n  (1992)("Thegovernmentmaynotregulate[speech]basedonhostility!orfavoritism!towards @ theunderlyingmessageexpressed.");Simon&Schuster,Inc.v.CrimeVictimsBd.ofN.Y.,502 b U.S.105,11518(1992). 4   Plaintiffsproposaldoesnotmeetanypartofthistest.    A.0 ` ItisUndisputedThatPlaintiffAsksThisCourttoImposea` (#` (#    ` ContentBasedRegulationonPlaintiffsSpeech. 󀀀 t "j  PlaintiffconcedesthattheinjunctionitseeksisaregulationonspeechandthatPlaintiff I attacksthecontentofDefendantsspeech.Plaintiffsonlyargumentinvolvesstrongadjectives: k PlaintiffcontendsthatthelevelofscrutinyisreducedbecausetheDomainNameinquestion  = containstheword fuck,whichPlaintiffsubjectivelyseekstocharacterizeas obsceneand "! profaneor vulgar.Onthisground,Plaintiffarguesthatalesserstandardofscrutiny!that $# foundinCentralHudsonGas&Elec.Corp.v.PublicServ._Commn_ԀofN.Y.,447U.S.557 c&!% (1980)!shouldapply.Plaintiffsargumentismistaken. p  5(#'   CentralHudson,firstofall,isnotanobscenitycase,butacaseabout commercial *W%) speech.Speechfallsinthe commercialcategoryonlyifitdoes nomorethanproposea +)'+ commercialtransaction.VirginiaStateBd.ofPharmacyv.VirginiaCitizensConsumer  Council,Inc.,425U.S.748,762(1976);_CPC_Ԁ_Intl_,214F.3dat462.Herethesituationisthe   exactopposite !theDefendantsexpressionusing _FUCKGENERALMOTORS.com_consists T exclusivelyofcorespeech(humorouscommentaryandcriticism)anddoesnothingwhatsoever , | toproposeanycommercialtransactionwithanyone.Id.;seealsoRubinv.CoorsBrewingCo.,  N 514U.S.476,48183(1995);seealso44Liquormart,Inc.v.RhodeIsland,517U.S.484,495   98(1996)(describinghistoryandlimitedscopeof commercialspeechdoctrine).     Next,plaintiffspremisethatthepurportedoffensiveeffectofthespeechonthe t  hypotheticalaudiencesomehowlowersthestandardofscrutinyisalsoinerror.TheSupreme F CourthasalreadysquarelyrejectedthePlaintiffsargumentinReno,521U.S.at86480.The h SupremeCourtsrejection,asrelevanttothiscase,wastwofold.Firstofall,establishedFirst : Amendmentjurisprudencedoesnotpermitaloweringofthestandardofscrutinybecauseofan   alleged offensiveorupsettingimpactontheaudience.Reno,at868(citingBoosv.Berry,485  U.S.312,321(1988));ForsythCountyv.NationalistMovement,505U.S.123,134(1992) ` (rejecting hecklersvetoargumentbecause Listenersreactiontospeechisnota 2 content-neutralbasisforregulation).Second,theInternetmediumhasitsowncharacteristics,  T andisnotappropriateforthedegreeofregulationpermittedinbroadcastingcasessuchasF.C.C. !&  v.PacificaFound.,438U.S.726(1978)(GeorgeCarlin FilthyWordsbroadcastcase);and #" SableCommunicationsofCal.,Inc.v.FCC,492U.S.115(1989): z% $ 8  0`   QXdFXXXdFInevaluatingthefreespeechrightsofadults,wehavemadeit% b #XdFXXQXdFy#%boyperfectly L'"& clearthat [s]exualexpressionwhichisindecentbutnotobsceneis 5(#' protectedbytheFirstAmendment.Sable,492U.S.at126.Seealso )n$( Careyv.PopulationServicesInt'l,QXdFXXXdFԀ431U.S.678,701(1977)#XdFXXQXdFz#Ԁ( [W]here *W%) obscenityisnotinvolved,wehaveconsistentlyheldthatthefactthat *@&* protectedspeechmaybeoffensivetosomedoesnotjustifyits +)'+ suppression").Indeed,QXdFXXXdF_Pacifica_#XdFXXQXdF{#Ԁitselfadmonishedthat thefactthat  societymayfindspeechoffensiveisnotasufficientreasonfor  suppressingit.QXdFXXXdF438U.S.at745.#XdFXXQXdF}#QXdFXXXdF   ` `  Inshort#XdFXXQXdFh}#,Plaintiffscomplaint focusesonlyonthecontentofthespeechandthedirectimpact T thatspeechhasonitslisteners.Playboy,at811(citingBoos,485U.S.at321(opinionof & v O'CONNOR,J.)).Thisisthe essence ofcontent-basedregulation.Playboy,at811(emphasis  H added).Assuch,itisclearlysubjectto strictscrutiny.Id.;Reno,at874.      B.0 ` PlaintiffsProposalFailsStrictScrutiny. ` (#` (#    Plaintiffdoesnotevenproposetomakeanevidentiaryshowingrelatingtoanyofthe v   strictscrutinyfactors.AllPlaintiffdoesishypothesizeaboutspeculative confusionofthe H public!eventhoughPlaintiff(intheprehearingconference)hasalreadyadmittedthereisno j evidencewhatsoeverthatanybodyeverhasbeenoreverwillbe confused.Truetoform, < FORDjustspeculateswildlyaboutthementalstatesandbeliefsofimaginarypeoplethathave  neverbeeninterviewedormadeavailableunderoathforcrossexamination.    Defendantswillassumeforthesakeofargumentthattheinteresttobeprotectedbythe b LanhamAct!namelypreventingsituationsinwhichacustomerthinksheorsheispurchasinga 4  FORDautomobile,wheninfactthatcustomerispurchasingsomethingelse,seeNewKidson  V theBlockv.NewsAm._Publg_,971F.2d302(9thCir.1992)(discussingpurposeandhistoryof !(  trademarklaw)_i /#  3      _Ԁ!constitutesatleastan importantstateinterest,andthatPlaintiffcouldmake #" agoodfaithargumentinfavoroftreatingatleastsomespecificextremeLanhamActcasesas  presentinga compelling_intrst_Ԁonanasappliedbasis.However,Plaintiffneverevenattempts  tomakesuchanargument.In this caseitisclearenoughthattherecannotpossiblybeanyas T applied _compeling_governmentalinterest.Thereisnodangerinthiscasewhatsoeverofany , | customerbuyingfakeor bogusFORDbrandedautomobiles,merchandiseoranythingelse.  N   Instead,Plaintiffsallegationsabouthypothetical injury(whichareandatthehearing   willbeunsupportedbyanyevidencewhatsoever)simplyaretoospeculativeandephemeralto   justifycontentbasedrestrictionsonspeech. t    PlaintiffsallegationsclearlydonotdealwiththeInternetpopulationatlarge,butrather F withaselfselectingsubpopulation(namelyuserswhotype _www.fuckgeneralmotors.com_, h wonderingwherethataddresswilltakethem).Howmanyofthemmistakenlybelievethat : FORDMotorCompanyactuallypublishedtheWebsitepointer?Thereisnoevidenceonthis   _issue._ԀNoristhereanyfactualbasis(andPlaintiffwillpresentnone)toinferthatthenumberis  greaterthanzero.Plaintiffbearstheburdenofproofonthisissue,andintheabsenceof  evidencetovalidatePlaintiffsspeculation,Plaintiffloses.    Evenassuming(hypothetically)thatanonzeronumberofpeopleformsuchabelief(as T thoughitisntobviousenoughthattheperson pointingthisDomainNamecouldnt possibly  & v betheFordMotorCompany),l /#  4      ׀whatpercentageofthemlackthebasicskillofperforminga  N  Whoissearchandtherebydeterminingwhothe real owneroftheDomainNameis?Given   thatmostofthepeoplewhogettheideatotypethedomainnamedosofromsourceslikethe   2600WebsiteorWired(wherethestoryhasbeenpublicized),itisonlyreasonabletoexpectan z  extraordinarilytechsavvyaudiencethatsimplyisnotgoingtobefooled. L   Third,evenassumingthereareafewreallyextraordinarypeoplewhojustdont n recognizethejoke,dotheytakeanyactioninrelianceontheirmistakenbelief?FORDdoesnt @ allegethattheydo.NorwillFORDofferanyevidenceofreliance.Moreover,itobviously  wouldbeimpossibletosaysuch reliancewouldbe reasonable inanyevent.Noreasonable  person!inlightoftheexpressivecontentoftheDomainName!wouldpossiblyentertainsuch l abelief.Andfinally,plaintifffailstoaddresstheissueof_scienter_!therepointingofthedomain > nameobviouslywasnotintendedtotrickpeopleintobuyinganyproducts(noneareforsale,and  ` DefendantsdonotevenpublishbanneradvertisingusingthisDomainName). !2    Inshort,thiscasejustsimplydoesntpresentanylikelihoodofanykindofconfusion,_K /#  5      _ #" andevenifthereisallegedlysomeremoteandspeculativepossibilityof confusion!itisnot  the kind of confusiontrademarklawisdesignedtoaddress,orthatthegovernmenthasany  interestinregulating.A&HSportswear,166F.3dat20506;August_Storck_,QXdFXXXdFԀ59F.3dat618.#XdFXXQXdF# Z Therearejustsomekindsofsillymisunderstandingsthatwelivewithasasociety.The , | governmenthasnointerestinmakingsurethatthesehypotheticalpeopleallegedbyFORDare  N preventedfromleapingtofaulty(and,frankly,stupid)conclusionsthatwouldeasilybedispelled   uponareasonablydiligentinvestigationofthefacts.     Likewise,evenacursoryexaminationoftheastonishingscopeoftheinjunctionPlaintiff t  seeksdemonstratesthatitisneither narrowlytailorednor necessaryunderthecircumstances F !especiallywhenPlaintiffhaseasilyavailabletechnologicalselfhelpremediesatitsdisposal h thataresatisfactoryenoughtomakeitunnecessaryfortheCourttointervene. :   Thereasonsfordecliningtoimposeacontentbasedrestrictiononspeechareespecially   strongbecausePlaintiffisseekingapreliminaryinjunction. Apreliminaryinjunctionisavery  seriousremedy, nevertobeindulgedinexceptinacaseclearlydemandingit.Barbecue ` Marx,Inc.v.511Ogden,.Inc.,235F.3d1041,104344(7thCir.2001)(quotingRolandMach. 2 Co.v.DresserIndus.,749F.2d380,389(7thCir.1984)(_Posner_,J.)).ThePlaintiffclearlybears  T theburdenofproofofdemonstratingbothalikelihoodofirreparableinjuryandasubstantial  likelihoodofprevailingonthemerits.BarbecueMarx,235F.3dat1043.Here,Plaintiffhas  clearlyfailedtomakethenecessaryfactualshowing!oreventointroduceevidenceinsupport T ofeitheroftheserequiredelements. & v   II.0 ` PlaintiffFailsToStateaViableClaimUndertheLanhamActortheFTDA.  H` (#` (#    ` A.0 FORDIsNota FamousTrademark.    (# (#   TheFederalTrademarkDilutionActrestrictsnoncompetingusesofasmallclassof   markscalled famousmarks!e.g.,KodakpianosorXeroxmouthwash.Notalltrademarksare r   famous!evenifextraordinarilywellknown.Both famousnessand dilution!asthose D termsofartareusedintheFTDA!havecausedthecourtsconsiderableinterpretivedifficulty. f SeeFederalExp.Corp.v.FederalEspresso,Inc.,201F.3d168,17778(2ndCir.2000);QXdFXXXdF_Ringling_ 8 Bros.Barnum&BaileyCombinedShows,Inc.v.UtahDiv.ofTravelDev.#XdFXXQXdFt#,170F.3d449,459   (4thCir.)(RecognizingthattheFTDAterm dilutionpresents_unremitting[ly_]_difficul[t_]...  interpretive_problem[s_]forallwhotouchit...)QXdFXXXdF,#XdFXXQXdFy#cert.denied,528U.S.923(1999);_I.P._ԀLund ^ Trading_ApS_Ԁv.KohlerCo.,163F.3d27,4647(1stCir.1998)( Boththetextandlegislative 0 historyoftheoriginalbillin1988andtheFTDAitselfindicateacongressionalintentthatcourts  R shouldbediscriminatingandselectiveincategorizingamarkasfamous.);_HQM_,Ltd.v. !$  Hatfield,71F.Supp.2d50609(D.Md.2000). #"   Themark FORDisnotanarbitraryorfancifulcoinedtermlike Kodak, Xerox, x% $  Prozac, Kleenex,or(probablynotfamous yet ) _Verizon_.Indeed,manycompaniesother J'"& thantheFordMotorCompanyoffergoodsorservicesincommercethatusemarksreferencing ")r$( thename Ford.See,e.g.,U.S.P.T.O.Reg.No.1939442(Dec.5,1995)( BettyFordCenter); *D&* U.S.P.T.O.Reg.No.2400805(Oct.31,2000)( OneFordRoadforrealestatedevelopment);  U.S.P.T.O.Reg.No.2075160(July1,1997)( HenryFordHealthSystemforhealthcare  services);U.S.P.T.O.Reg.No.2077011(July8,1997)( HenryFordforhealthcareservices); T U.S.P.T.O.RegNo.2064445(May27,1997)( HenryFordMuseum);U.S.P.T.O.App.No. & v 76001043(publishedforoppositionOct.24,2000)( FordsColonyforcountryclub  H entertainmentservices);U.S.P.T.O.App.No.75514241(publishedforoppositionDec.28,    1999)( TheFordPlantationforrealestatedevelopment,hotelservices,andgolfcourse   entertainmentservices). n    Theword FORDsimplylacksthedegreeofinherentdistinctivenesstoassociateit @ uniquelywithasinglecompanyorasinglesourceofgoodsandservices.Thestrongest b protectionisreservedforfancifulmarksthatarepurelytheproductofimaginationandhaveno 4 logicalassociationwiththeproduct.EliLilly&Co.v.NaturalAnswers,Inc.QXdFXXXdF,233F.3d456,466  (7thCir.200)( Prozaccase);Nabisco,Inc.v.PFBrands,Inc.,191F.3d208,216(2nd  Cir.1999)#XdFXXQXdFR#.Especiallyatthepreliminaryinjunctionphase,whereFORDhasofferednoactual Z evidenceonanyoftheelementsof famousnessor dilution,itwouldbeinappropriatesimply ,| toassumethat FORDcanclaimtopossessasocalled famousmark._TCPIP_ԀHoldingCo., N Inc.v._Haar_ԀCommunications,Inc.,244F.3d88,95(2ndCirFeb28,2001)( againsta !   backgroundofpoliciesthatstronglydisfavormarkslackinginherentdistinctiveness,according #" themonlynarrowprotection,wethinkithighlyunlikelythatCongressintendedtoextendto t% $ suchmarkstheexpanded% e %edrightsconferredbytheDilutionAct).Amarkthatevokesan F'"& associationwithaspecificsourceonlywhenusedinconnectionwiththeparticulargoodsor )h$( servicesthatitidentifiesisordinarilynotsufficientlydistinctivetobeprotectedagainstdilution. *:&* _I.P._ԀLund,at4647.    B.0 ` FORDHasNoStandingToComplainAbout _FuckGeneralMotors.com_ ` (#` (#   GeneralMotorshasthreatenedtosuetheDefendantsoverthisDomainName,buthas V not.InFact,theDomainNamedoesnotinfringeanyrightofGeneralMotors.However,clearly ( x enough,FORDdoesnotownorhaveanyrighttothetrademarksofitsdirectcompetitorGeneral  J Motors.FORDhasnostandingtosueonGeneralMotorssbehalf.         C.0 ` FORDHasFailedtoStateaClaimforInfringement,FalseDesignationof   Origin,orDilutionBecauseFORDFailsToAllegeFactsSufficientTo   Signify TrademarkUseor CommercialUse. 󀀀r ` (#` (#   Thekeytotrademarklawisthesourcedesignatingfunctionoftrademarks.Domain G Namesdonotautomaticallyconstitute marksthatsignifythesourceofparticulargoodsor i servicesthatareofferedorsoldincommerce.SeeDataConcepts,Inc.v.DigitalConsulting, ; Inc.,150F.3d620,62727(6thCir.1998)(Merritt,J.,concurring)(citingLockheedMartin   Corp.v.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,QXdFXXXdFԀ985F.Supp.949,956(C.D.Cal.1997)#XdFXXQXdF#);UnitedStates  PatentandTrademarkOffice,ExaminationGuideNo.299:TrademarksComposed,In a WholeOrInPart,ofDomainNames(Sept.29,1999). 3   Plaintiffreliesontwolinesofcasesthatareclearlyinapplicable.Inonelineofcases,  U FORDemphasizesthe _Candyland_orFordMotorCo.v._Lapertosa_QXdFXXXdF,126F.Supp.2d463(E.D. !'  Mi.2000),#XdFXXQXdFL#scenario,inwhichapublishersetsupaWebsiteoffering(inexchangeforan #" admissionfee)accesstopornographiccontent,andthendrawstraffictothepornographysite {% $ withadomainnamesuchas _fordrecalls.com_.Seeid.at465(siteused topurvey M'"& pornographicoradultentertainment_materials)._ԀThesecasesarenowgenerallydecided(as )o$( wasthe_Lapertosa_Ԁcase)underthe _Cybersquating_ԀAct.Thiscasehowever,conspicuouslydoes *A&* notinvolveany_ACPA_Ԁclaims!andwithgoodreason.TheDomainNameatissueheredoesnot  bearanysimilaritywhatsoevertoanyFORDtrademark.    The pornographycasesareobviouslyinapplicableherebecauseDefendantsdonot T evenpublishanyWebsiteusingtheDomainNameinquestion,andsimplydonotuseitto & v peddleanykindofgoodsorserviceswhatsoever.In this case,theDomainNameisusedpurely  H forpurposesofspeech,and not tobuyandsellanythingovertheInternet.Becausethesaleof   pornographyatleastarguablymayconstitute trademarkuseand commercialuse! butthe   expressiveuseinthiscaseclearlydoesnot !the pornographycasesareinapplicable.     Likewise,thesecondlineofcasesrelieduponbythePlaintiff!characterizedbyPlanned X Parenthoodv._Bucci_!isequallyinapplicable.Infact,seenote2,supra,courts(includingthe *z _Northland_ԀInsurancecourt)havealreadyidentifiedthisexactgroundofdistinction,andhave L heldthatPlannedParenthoodisinapplicablebecauseMr._Bucci_Ԁwastryingtouseaverysubtle  disguiseinordertrickvisitorsintobelievingthatthesitewasactuallyPlannedParenthood,and  therebytoenticethemintopurchasingbooksthathewaspeddling._Northland_ԀIns.Cos.,115F. r Supp.2dat1120( QXdFXXXdFInthiscase,defendantdoesnotappeartobesituatedtobenefitfinanciallyor D commerciallyfromtheexistenceofthiswebsite,whichappearstobesolelyintendedtocapture  f theattentionofinsuranceconsumerstosharedefendant'scommercialcommentaryand !8  criticism.)#XdFXXQXdF#;seealsoBallyTotalFitness,29F.Supp.2dat1168( BallyarguesthatFaberhas # " tarnisheditsmarkbyassociatingitwithpornography.Commercialuseisanessentialelementof % $ anydilutionclaim.....Themereuseofanother'snameontheInternet,however,isnotperse ^'"& commercialuse.). 0)$(   Thecaseof_HQM_Ԁv.Hatfield,involvingdismissalofa_complaint_Ԁforfailuretostateany +R&* infringementordilutionclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,isdirectlyonpoint:_q /#  6      _Ԁ Plaintiffs  failtoallegeeven oninformationandbelief!thatDefendantusestheirmarkinconnection  withanygoodsorservices,muchlessinawaythatwouldsatisfythelikelihoodofconfusion T test.Thus,Plaintiffs'Complaintfailsasamatterofstatutorylaw._HQM_,Ltd.v.Hatfield,71F. & v Supp.2d500,50405&n.18(D.Md.1999).Similarly,thePlaintiffherefailstoallegeor  H identifyanygoodsorservicesor commercialusewhatsoever:    8  ?+ ` hp x X?Plaintiffs'argumenton"commercialuse"issimpleoncethewatersclear.   Plaintiffsfirstofferuparedherring:Plaintiffsstatethat mostcourtsfindthat   simpleuseoftheInternetissufficienttomeettheincommercerequirementof n  theDilutionAct,....PlaintiffsnextpointtoDefendant'sallegedregistration W  _HATFIELD.COM_Ԁunderthe.comdesignation[and]arguethatthe.comuse... @ satisfiesthe"commercialuse"requirement.TheCourtrejectsthispropositionfor )y thefollowingreasons.b   8  First,nearlyeveryCourttohavedecidedwhethermereregistrationoractivation 4 ofadomainnameconstitutes commercialusehasrejectedsucharguments,  evenwhenthedomainnameornamesincludedthe.comdesignation.See  LockheedMartinCorp.v.NetworkSolutions,Inc.,985F.Supp.949  (C.D.Cal.1997)QXdFXXXdFԀ("[_R]egistration_Ԁofadomainname,withoutmore,doesnot  %  #XdFXXQXdF#%g%  %QXdFXXXdFconstituteuseofthenameasatrademark."),#XdFXXQXdF#_aff'd_,194F.3d980(9thCir.1999);  _Panavision_Ԁ_Intl_,L.P.v._Toeppen_,QXdFXXXdFԀ945F.Supp.1296(C.D.Cal.1996)#XdFXXQXdF&#QXdFXXXdF  ("Registrationofa_trade[mark_]asadomainname,withoutmore,isnota  commercialuseofthetrademarkandthereforeisnotwithintheprohibitionsof k theAct."),#XdFXXQXdF#_aff'd_,_Panavision_ԀInternationalL.P.v._Toeppen_,141F.3d1316(9th T Cir.1998);AcademyofMotionPictureArts&Sciencesv.NetworkSolutions, =  Inc.,QXdFXXXdFԀ989F.Supp.1276(C.D.Cal.1997)#XdFXXQXdF#Ԁ(holdingmereregistrationofadomain & v namedoesnotconstitutecommercialuse);BallyTotalFitnessHoldingCorp.v.  _ Faber,QXdFXXXdFԀ29F.Supp.2d1161(C.D.Ca.1998)#XdFXXQXdF#Ԁ(holdingmereuseofanother'smark  H onInternetisinsufficienttoconstitutecommercialuse);JunoOnlineServicesv.  1  JunoLighting,Inc.,QXdFXXXdFԀ979F.Supp.684(N.D.Ill.1997)#XdFXXQXdF5#QXdFXXXdFԀ(holdingreservationof    domainnamewithoutawebsitedoesnotconstituteinfringementunderLanham   Act#XdFXXQXdF#QXdFXXXdF#XdFXXQXdFl#43(a)).     8  Insupportoftheirargumentonthe.comdesignation,Plaintiffsrelyondictain n  Avery_Dennison_ԀCorp.v._Sumpton_,QXdFXXXdFԀ189F.3d868(9thCir.1999)#XdFXXQXdF#QXdFXXXdF,#XdFXXQXdF#QXdFXXXdF_rev'ing_#XdFXXQXdFe#QXdFXXXdF999F. W  Supp.1337(C.D.Cal.1998)#XdFXXQXdF#.InAvery,theNinthCircuitheldthatthe @ Defendants'businessofregisteringandlicensingcommonsurnamesdidnot )y constitute commercialuse.Plaintiffs,however,citethediscussioninAveryQXdFXXXdFԀof b thedifferencesbetweenregisteringunderthe.netandthe.comdesignations,to K arguethatthelatterconstitutescommercialuseand#XdFXXQXdFD#dilution.TheCourtbelieves 4 thatPlaintiffsreadfartoomuchintothesestatements.TheCourtalsobelieves  thatbetterreasoningonthe.comdesignationisfoundin_Intermatic_ԀInc.v.  _Toeppen_,QXdFXXXdFԀ947F.Supp.1227(N.D.Ill.1996)#XdFXXQXdF#.Inthatdecision,whichpostdated  Defendant'sallegedregistrationbyoverayear,thecourtheld:   Ѐ 8  8`   Theuseofthefirstleveldomaindesignation".com"doesnotin Z andofitselfconstituteacommercialuse.TheInternetisconstantly C changingandevolving.Currentlythe".com"designationisthe ,| onlyoneavailableforbothcommercialandprivateuse.Inthe e future,perhapsotherfirstleveldomaindesignationwillbe N availablesolelyforprivateorcommercialuses.However,the  7 CourtisnotheretosetpolicyguidelinesfortheInternet,butrather !   mustapplythelawtotheInternetasitexiststoday.Therefore,the " ! Courtholdsthatthe.comdesignationalonedoesnotestablish #" commercialuse.$#` x` x 8  See_Intermatic_ԀInc.v._Toeppen_,947F.Supp.at1239.Forsimilarreasons,the ]&!% CourtholdsthatunderthefactsallegedinthisComplaint,the.comdesignation F'"& doesnotbyitselfconstitutecommercialuse.Toholdotherwisewouldcreatean /(#' immediateandindefinitemonopolytoallfamousmarksholdersontheInternet, )h$( bywhichtheycouldlayclaimtoall.comdomainnameswhicharearguably the *Q%) sameastheirmark.TheCourtmaynotcreatesuchpropertyrightsingrossasa *:&* matterofdilutionlaw.See_Ringling_ԀBros.Barnum,QXdFXXXdFԀ170F.3d449(4thCir.1999)#XdFXXQXdF#. +#'+ Moreover,todosowouldinterjecttheCourtasapolicymakerfordomainnames  andtheInternet,atatimewhentheyarerapidlyevolving._Intermatic_ԀInc.,QXdFXXXdFԀ947F.  Supp.1227(N.D.Ill.1996)#XdFXXQXdF:#;QXdFXXXdFAvery_Dennison_,#XdFXXQXdF#QXdFXXXdFԀ189F.3d868(9thCir.1999)#XdFXXQXdF*#QXdFXXXdF.Thisis  aCourtoflimitedjurisdiction.TheCourtmustmakeitsdecisionbasedonthe k federaltrademarklawsastheyexisttoday;theCourtmaynotdistortthelawto T satisfyamarkholder'sdesires.#XdFXXQXdF#Cf.WashingtonSpeakersBureau,Inc.v.Leading =  Authorities,Inc.,49F.Supp.2d496(1999)("Nothingintrademarklawrequires & v thattitletodomainnamesthatincorporatetrademarksorportionsoftrademarks  _ beprovidedtotrademarkholders."). H   _HQM_,Ltd.,at50708.Theidenticalreasoningissquarelyapplicablehere.SeealsoThe    NetworkNetworkv.CBS,Inc.,2000WL362016(C.D.Cal.Jan.18,2000).    III.0  DefendantsareNotSubjecttoPersonalJurisdiction.  n (#(#   Theexistenceofpersonaljurisdictionisanecessaryprerequisiteforinjunctiverelief. B R.M.S.Titanic,Inc.v._Haver_,171F.3d943,95758(4thCir.1999).Andtheburdenisonthe d plaintifftopresentanevidentiaryfoundationforpersonaljurisdiction.Compuserve,Inc.v. 6 Patterson,89F.3d1257,1262(6thCir.1996);_Winfield_ԀCollection,Ltd.v.McCauley,105F.  Supp.2d746,74849(E.D.Mi.2000);Neighborsv._Penske_ԀLeasing,Inc.,45F.Supp.2d593,  597(E.D.Mi.1999).Plaintiffdoesnotevenproposetopresentanyevidenceonthissubject. \ AccordinglythereisnobasistofindspecificjurisdictionovereitherDefendant,orgeneral .~ jurisdictionoverDefendant2600.See_Helicopteros_Ԁ_Nacionales_ԀdeColombia,S.A.v.Hall,466  P U.S.408,414&_nn_.89(1984)(discussingstandardsforspecificandgeneraljurisdiction, !"  respectively). #"  IV.0  ThereIsNoGeneral RightNottoBeReferredToontheWeb. v% $(#(#   AsthepublicationsoftheinventoroftheWorldWideWebclearlydemonstrate,andas J'"& Mr.Goldsteindiscussesatlengthinhisaffidavit,the freedomtolinkortomakereferencesto )l$(  anything thatispublishedontheWebisfundamentaltotheWebsveryexistence.Mr. *>&* GoldsteinhadeveryrighttorelyonthesecommonunderstandingsandpracticesoftheInternet  community,andifFORDclaimsignoranceofthesecontrollingnorms,itisFORDsownfault.   V.0   WitnessesandDocuments .T(#(#   ThetenexhibitsattachedtoMr.Goldsteinsdeclarationaretheonlyexhibitsthat , | Defendantsproposetointroduceatthistime.DefendantswitnessesincludeMr.Goldstein  N himselfandpossiblyoneotherwitness!aDNSspecialistforanotherautomobilemanufacturer.   Wearestillevaluatingthatwitnessandcheckinghiscredentials,however.Defendantshave   askedforoneitemofdiscovery(andwouldseektointroduceitifproduced)!acompletelistor t  catalogofallthe _referers_makingreferralstotheFORDWebsiteinthelastmonth,andthe F relativevolumegeneratedbyeachofthem.FORDhasnotrespondedtothisrequest. h   DefendantsrespectfullydisagreewithPlaintiffscharacterizationoftheMonday Meet : andConferconference.Moreover,PlaintiffomitstomentionthatDefendantscounselwasnot   madeprivytotheCourtsinstructionsuntil4:25intheafternoononFriday,May11,2001.    WealsothinkitisimportanttospeakbrieflytoPlaintiffsrepresentationsastowhat ` factsaredisputedandwhatarenot.Somefactsinthiscaseareundisputed.Forexample,itis 2 undisputedthatplaintiffseekstoregulatespeech,andthattheproposedregulationiscontent  T based.Plaintiffsrepresentationsaboutthe referral,howeverare not undisputed.Plaintiffs !&  explanationandDefendantsexplanationarenotinanywayinconsistent.Plaintiffjustglosses #" overandfailstoaddressanumberofveryimportantfactualpoints. % $   AnystatementsaboutPlaintiffaboutwhatpeoplebelieve,whetheranyoneisconfused,or R'"& whatthecustomsornormsontheInternetmaybe,areallrespectfullydisputed.Defendantsalso $)t$( disputewhetherPlaintiffhasmanagedtoprovetheessentialelementsnecessarytosecurean *F&* injunctionbasedon any threecausesofactionalleged.  @GG% CONCLUSION     Wherefore,premisesconsidered,DefendantsrespectfullypraythatPlaintiffsMotionfor \ aPreliminaryInjunctionberejectedandthattheactionbedismissedforlackofjurisdictionor . ~ failuretostateaclaim.  P    `     h     Respectfullysubmitted,   0  0` (#(# 0` (#` (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(# (#(# May16,20010 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#_____________________________ (#(#    `     h     EricC.Grimm(P58990) H    `     h     CyberBrief,PLC    1    `     h     320SouthMainStreet k    `     h     P.O.Box7341 T    `     h     AnnArbor,MI481077341 =    `     h     734.332.4900